A condensed version
of this page is in myOverview-FAQ.I recommend reading
it first because
it's shorter so you can get quick overview of the ideas, and
because after initially writing both pages I've been more diligent
in revising/supplementing the Overview-FAQ (especially in Sections 3-7) so it currently includes
some
ideas
that are
not in this page, but some other ideas are
only in this page.

Introduction While
writing this page I'm imagining that you, or someone you know, is in
a situation similar to this: In a sermon your pastor declares,
with total confidence, that "because the Bible teaches a young earth,
I believe it and so should you." But your teacher for Sunday School,
who is a good friend and an expert geologist, explains why the scientific support
for an old earth is strong, and how several interpretations of Genesis (day-age,
framework,...) are compatible with this science. You're not a scientist
and neither is your pastor, but when you ask him about this he loans you a
book written by young-earth scientists, where you see arguments that seem to
make sense. Your pastor wonders if he should let your friend teach in
his church, and you
have questions. {from the homepage for Origins Questions}

3A. Is an old-earth interpretation
of Genesis 1 satisfactory?

Is
young-earth theology taught in Genesis 1? Or when
we examine the text, are other interpretations possible or preferable? Does Genesis 1 describe
history
in chronological sequence? In a young-earth 144-hour interpretation,
each "yom" is a 24-hour day, and the entire
creation process occurred in six consecutive days. In
a day-age view, each "yom" (usually translated into
English as "day") has one of its other meanings, "a period of time with
an unspecified length." Or creation might have occurred in
six nonconsecutive 24-hour days, with long periods between each day. Or
maybe in six "days of proclamation" God
described what would occur during the process of creation. In a gap view,
there was an initial creation (in Genesis 1:1), a catastrophe (in 1:2), and a
re-creation on the earth (beginning in 1:3). In a framework view,
the six days form a logical framework for describing actual historical events,
but with events arranged topically instead of chronologically. Genesis
1:2 describes the earth as "formless and empty," so
there are two problems. The two solutions are to produce
form, and to fill. The first 3 days produce form (by separations,
in time or space, that produce day and night, sky and sea, and land with plants)
and the second 3 days fill these forms (with sun for day and moon for
night, birds for sky and fish for sea, and land animals that eat plants):

separate
to make form

create to fill each
form

1

separating day and night

4

sun for day,
moon for night

2

separating sky and sea

5

sky animals, sea animals

3

separating land and
sea,
land plants are created

6

land animals
and humans,plants are used for food

The "form and fill" structure describes two related aspects of creation
in Days 1 and 4 (for light), 2 and 5 (for sea and sky), 3 and 6 (for
land), in a logical framework for the history of creation. { comment: I
think the framework is clearly in the text, and this interpretation —
which is neutral regarding age of the earth — correctly defines the intended
meaning of the six days; if we look only at the text, the days
could be logical and chronological,
but nonchronological days produce a better match between what we see
in
the Bible and in nature. } Many scholars think Genesis
1 was written specifically for its original readers, and the purpose
was only theological, not scientific. In this view,
Genesis 1 uses theories about physical reality from surrounding cultures
(it uses their ancient near-east cosmology)
for the purpose of more effectively challenging their theories about spiritual
reality (their polytheistic "nature religions").

All interpretations
should emphasize the essential creation-theology in Genesis 1: Everything
we see in nature was created by God, and is subordinate to God. There
are no polytheistic "nature gods" so we should worship only the
one true God who created everything. God's creation is good but is
not divine, so nature is placed in proper perspective. God declared
His creation to be very good, so we can reject the idea that physical things
are intrinsically bad; our problem is sin, not physicality. And
humans are special because God created us in His own image.

3B. Does the gospel (and salvation)
require "no
death before sin"?

The two main arguments for young-earth
theology (above and below) claim that Genesis
1 describes a 144-hour creation, and "death before
sin" is
theologically unacceptable.Ken Ham says: "The
Bible is adamant that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as
a result of sin. ... As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and
disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross
and the Atonement have been destroyed. ... The whole message of the Gospel
falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world. (source from Answers
in Genesis)" Another
prominent creationist, John Morris, agrees: "If
the earth is old, if fossils date from before man's sin, then Christianity
is wrong! These
ideas destroy the foundation for the Gospel and negate the work of Christ on
the
cross. (source from Institute
for Creation Research)" {but
there
are three histories of death (not just two)}

Animal Death and Human
SinIn a process of old-earth creation, many animals
would live and die. Advocates of young-earth theology
claim
that "animal
death before human sin" violates the central Biblical doctrine
(firmly established in Genesis 3, Romans 5,...) that death is the result of sin.Initially this argument seems impressive. But
when we look more closely, we see very little in the Bible about human sin
and animal death. Instead, the focus is on people, with sin and death
being enemies of humans, to be overcome by the sinless life and the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Animal death before human sin is
not a theological problem if God's gift of eternal life through the supernatural "tree
of life" was available for humans in Eden, but not for animals
before Eden.Compared with a claim that "all
death is due to human sin," it is more justifiable to claim that "human
death is
due to human sin." Human sin-and-death is the problem,
and God's solution
is a wonderful plan — for
changing sin and death into salvation and life —
that works
whether the
earth
is
young or
old. This
plan is explained below, beginning
with the results of sin.

Three Results of Human
Sin In Genesis 2:17, God says "you
must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." In Genesis
3:6, tempted by a creature who already had fallen into sin and rebellion,
Eve (and then Adam) ate from this tree of knowledge, choosing to make moral decisions
for themselves, independent from God, instead of trusting and obeying God. Their sinful disobedience had three
results: The immediate intrinsic result was a loss of their innocence
and their intimate relationship with God, in Genesis
3:7-13. Then two judicial penalties were decreed by God, in Gen
3:14-24: first, a decrease in quality
of life for humans (Gen 3:14-19,23); second, death for humans (Gen
3:22,24) because "the
man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not
be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat,
and live forever." The "tree
of life" seems to symbolize the supernatural total
protective power that continually was provided by God. When
this total protection was removed by God due to their sin, Adam and
Eve immediately began to perish, with natural processes temporarily allowing
life while gradually (during the "yom" of Genesis 2:17 that usually
is translated as "day" but, as in Genesis 1, can also indicate a
longer period of time) leading
to their eventual death.

A Brief History of Sin
and Salvation Let's look at our
problem (sin and death) and God's solution (for converting
sin and death into salvation and life). Sin and Death: The fall into sin produced three
results: a decrease in relationship with God, a decrease in quality of
life, and a loss of everlasting life. Through God's grace and power, the
initial gift of life (with relationship, quality, and immortality) was offered
to Adam, but was lost by his sinful disobedience. Salvation and Life: We had
sinned and thus earned death. We needed a savior, and God is merciful,
so the gift of life (with relationship, quality, and immortality) was won back
for us by our savior. Jesus Christ accepted the penalty of death that
each of us earns by our sinful disobedience, and (by living in sinless obedience
to the Father) Jesus earned the right to make His own Eternal Life available,
as a gift of grace, to all humans who will accept: "The
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus
our Lord. (Romans 6:23)" (I
Corinthians 15:12-57) The "tree
of [everlasting] life" was (and will be) a supernatural gift from
God; the gift of everlasting life that in Genesis was temporarily taken
from us (because of sin) will be permanently given back to us
(because of Jesus)
in Revelation: "To him who overcomes, I will give
the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." (Revelation
2:7 & 22:1-2,14) In
heaven there will be no sin and no death, and God's goals for us will be permanently
actualized. Amen.

Other Questions The main theological principles
for explaining "animal death before human sin" are outlined
above, in a plan for salvation that does not depend on the earth's age. But
young-earth critics also challenge old-earth theology with related questions,
about time,
nature, and death: a) Isn't a long process of creation
a waste
of time? Why use billions of years, instead of 144 hours? b) Were the "laws of nature" different
in Eden, since the good aspects of natural process (allowing life and pleasure)
were not balanced by
its bad aspects (allowing death and suffering)? c) How could a natural creation that
includes
death be compatible with the character
of God? In Genesis 1:31, does "very good" mean "no
death"? A brief FAQ-4
Appendix looks
at these
questions, and here are quick responses: a) God has plenty of time and
patience. b) God
— who is not governed by his own "laws of nature" — decides
how
much protection (natural-appearing
and/or miraculous-appearing) to
provide
for humans in Eden, in
the
present, and in heaven. c) Theologically, "very
good" means "very good for achieving God's goals for His creation,
especially for humans."

The two main arguments for
young-earth theology, which you've seen in the first two sections, are
Genesis 1 and "no
death before sin." But
we can also look at other questions: What was the historical context
of Adam and Eve? When and where did they live? Are the lists
of their descendants complete, and what about the long lifespans? Did the flood of Noah cover the
entire world or only a local region? In Genesis 6-9, does the Hebrew
word "erets" mean "land" or "planet"? Which
type of flood, global or local, is more consistent with evidence from scripture
and nature?

When we carefully study
the Bible, should we conclude that the earth is young, or old, or that
neither view is
taught?Some creationists are certain
that their young-earth interpretation of Genesis is correct. Even though
they don't think young-earth belief is necessary for salvation, they do
claim
this
belief is an essential doctrine, and is necessary to provide a solid theological
foundation
for Christianity. They claim that "if the Bible is true, then the earth
is young." Is
this claim justified, and is it wise? St. Augustine said, "In
essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity." This is good
advice, but how can we decide if a doctrine is essential? One way is to
use our estimates of the doctrine's certainty and importance by
asking, "Is it taught with certainty in the Bible, and is it theologically
important?"

For example, consider the
claim that Jesus died and was brought back to life. Is it taught with certainty,
beyond any reasonable doubt? Yes. For example, it was clearly
stated in the first Christian sermon, by Peter in Acts 2:14-36. Is it important for Christian
theology? Yes. This is emphasized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "If
Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." If
the resurrection of Jesus is false, our hope for a future resurrection is
a false hope. The resurrection of Jesus is
both certainly taught and theologically important. It is an essential
doctrine, and a person who doesn't believe it is missing an essential core-belief
of Christianity.

Is a young earth essential? Is
it both certain and important?

Is it certain? After carefully studying
the language of Genesis 1 and the Bible as a whole, along with theological
analysis by comparing scripture with scripture, most evangelical Christian
scholars have decided that an old-earth view of creation is satisfactory. They
think an old-earth view is theologically justifiable, maybe even preferable,
or they adopt an age-neutral "framework" interpretation of
Genesis 1, so believing in the truth of the Bible does not
require believing a young earth. Most evangelical scholars
have concluded that neither view (young or old) is clearly taught, so
humility
is appropriate. For
example, in 1982 the International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy decided (by agreement of all members
except Henry Morris) to not include a 144-hour creation as an essential
component of a fundamentalist belief in inerrancy. They recommended
using information from nature (interpreted by science) to help us interpret
the Bible, when they affirmed that "in some
cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches,
and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations." For age of the earth,
this first question — is it certain? — is closely related to
the second question, as you'll see below.

Is it important? The previous section examines
a central young-earth claim — that if the earth is old, with animal
death before human sin, "the whole message
of the Gospel falls apart" because "these
ideas destroy the foundation for the Gospel and negate the work of
Christ on the cross" — and explains God's wonderful
plan (for overcoming the problem of human death due to human sin, for
changing sin and death into salvation and life) that works whether
the earth is young or old. Other essential Christian doctrines
also seem to be age-independent, and the full gospel of Jesus — including
His deity, virgin birth, teaching and miracles, sinless obedience to
the Father in life, substitutionary atonement in death, victorious
resurrection, ascension into heaven, and second coming — is fully
compatible with a young earth or old earth.

Of course, basic facts
of nature — like
whether the earth's age is thousands of years or billions of years, and
whether the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse is 30, 40, or 50 — have
no intrinsic theological importance. And advocates for a young earth
agree. A prominent creationist, Ken Ham, explains why a
young earth is not the issue because "our
emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young
Earth’... is a consequence of accepting the authority of the
Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator." Ham claims that, to
preserve Biblical authority, "We must interpret Scripture
with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!" He
thinks it is wrong to "start outside the Bible
to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture" because "once
you have told people to accept man's [scientific] dating methods, and thus
should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have
effectively undermined the Bible's authority!" But if Ham thinks we
should reject "ideas from the outside," why
doesn't he also insist that the Bible teaches a stationary earth? The
Bible clearly states that "the world is firmly
established; it cannot be moved" with a mobile sun orbiting
around it: "the sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises." (Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastes
1:5) Why
does he reject these clear statements? I think he will agree that
if we refuse to "impose ideas from the outside," we
will certainly conclude that the Bible teaches a stationary earth. But
he rejects this claim about nature, because he accepts the evidence from
nature (logically interpreted in science) and uses it as a "motivation
to reconsider" his interpretation of scripture. And when he
reconsiders, he finds valid reasons to think a moving-earth interpretation
of scripture
is credible, to think the Bible authors are simply describing what they
see. In
fact, you speak in the same way, without intending to claim anything about
science, when you step off a storm-tossed boat and say "it feels good
to be on solid ground that isn't constantly moving," or you say "what
a beautiful sunset" as you watch the sun move down past the horizon. Here is young-and-old analogy
plus old-earth analysis: analogy: Ham thinks
the overwhelming scientific evidence for a moving earth provides a motivation
to reconsider, and
then he discovers that a moving-earth interpretation of scripture is
justified. Similarly,
many Christians think the overwhelming scientific evidence for an old
earth provides a motivation to reconsider, and then we discover
that an old-earth interpretation of scripture is justified. analysis: A young-earth view of the Bible is reasonable,
but this makes it necessary to accept science that is unreasonable, with
an illogical "adjusting
of scientific logic" that produces conflict between young-earth
theology and logical science. By contrast, there is harmony between
theology and science with an old-earth view of the Bible (which is reasonable)
and
conventional old-earth science (it's also reasonable).

Ham explains one reason
why he thinks old-earth historical science is unreliable: "Why
would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use
them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? ... Can
fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?" Is
Ham claiming that an old-earth interpretation of nature is hindered
by sin, but his own young-earth interpretation of scripture is
not hindered by sin, so his interpretation of the Bible (not just
the Bible itself) is infallible? And his claim about "authority" ignores
the logical principle (outlined in FAQ-2, The
Two Books of Nature) that we cannot compare the Bible with science,
so we are not deciding that science is more important and therefore has "authority
over the Word of God." Instead, we are comparing fallible
human interpretations of the Bible (in theology) with fallible human interpretations
of nature (in science) while trying to search for truth. In The
Slippery Slope to Unbelief, Ham says, "If
we re-interpret God’s Word in Genesis to fit man’s fallible
opinion, then ultimately, it would only be consistent to apply this same
hermeneutic
(method of interpretation) elsewhere — even to Christ's Resurrection." He
claims that if we reject his scientific interpretation of Genesis 1,
we will also reject truly essential doctrines in the Bible. But
do all claims that "the
Bible teaches this" have equal amounts of support? No. We
can avoid a "slippery slope" and rationally decide that a 144-hour
creation is
not true, but
The Resurrection
is true and
is an essential
doctrine because (compared with a young earth) it is much more
certainly taught and is much more important.

Currently, the Association
for Biblical Astronomy"assumes that
whenever the two [Bible and conventional astronomy] are at variance,
it is always astronomy — that is, our "reading" of
the ‘Book of Nature,’ not our reading of the Holy Bible — that
is wrong." Does this sound familiar? Ken
Ham has decided that he, as a fallible sinful man, can avoid a "slippery
slope" by rationally deciding that the Bible should be interpreted in
a non-literal
way for
a
stationary
earth but
not
for a young earth, even though a stationary earth and young earth
are much closer (in what the Bible says about them) than are a young
earth and Christ's Resurrection.

3D. Is it wise to link The Gospel with a young earth?

Is it wise? The previous section began
by asking whether a claim that "young-earth belief is an essential
doctrine" is justified and wise. When we ask "is it justified?",
most Christian scholars think a young earth is not taught with certainty
in the Bible, and is not theologically important, so it is not an essential
doctrine. In addition, almost all scientists (both Christian and non-Christian)
think a young earth is almost certainly false, based on their logical evaluations
of evidence from nature. Despite these reasons for caution,
John Morris boldly declares that "If the earth
is old... then Christianity is wrong!" and Ken Ham agrees that "the
whole message of the Gospel falls apart." Their confident
assertions seem analogous to Paul saying, "If
Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Is
this wise? What are some results of young-earth claims?

A Logical Dilemma A claim that "if the
Bible is true, the earth is young" is logically equivalent to saying "if
the earth is not young, the Bible is not true." What happens
when a person who thinks "the Bible requires a young earth" examines
the scientific evidence and concludes "the universe and the earth
are old"? Another conclusion may be that "if the Bible
is wrong about the earth's age, maybe it's also wrong about other things
it teaches," so the spiritual authority of the Bible is weakened,
and faith is weakened or abandoned. Or a non-Christian who is an
earnest seeker of spiritual truth — and who is persuaded by young-earth
advocates that a young earth and Jesus are a "package deal" that
includes both or neither — may reject the combination due to a
conviction, based on their knowledge of science, that the earth is not
young. Therefore, it seems
wise for Christians to not encourage (and not accept) any implication — whether
it is made by fellow Christians who want to strengthen the Gospel,
or by non-Christians who want to discredit the Gospel — that "if
the earth is not young, the Bible is not true."

Why is it important? Does the age of the earth really matter? No
and yes. No, because it isn't essential theology. Yes, because
people
are important.Unfortunately often, a personal
dilemma occurs when rigid young-earth belief is confronted with the clear
logic of IF-IF-THEN reasoning: IF the Bible declares that the
earth is young, and IF in reality the earth is not young (as indicated by
a logical evaluation of abundant evidence from nature), THEN the logical
conclusion is that "the Bible is false."Ed, a former young-earth
believer and current Christian, explains how to avoid a spiritual
tragedy: "If R [a friend who discarded
his faith when faced with the if-if-then dilemma] had been offered
an alternative [believing the Bible without believing a young earth]
from the beginning, he would never have experienced the turmoil he
went through. When R could no longer deny that the universe
was billions of years old, the only option left for him [because
he continued to believe, as he had been vigorously taught, that believing
the Bible requires believing a young earth] was to deny the Bible."Hill
Roberts, head of the "Lord, I Believe" outreach ministry,
says: "Some of my well-meaning
brethren wish we would just drop all aspects of time discussions
from our presentations. That would certainly be the easy
way. Todd [a former young-earth believer who, like "R",
rejected the Bible and Jesus when he was confronted with the if-if-then
dilemma] is why we cannot go that way." He is
explaining why, because we love people, we should help them avoid
the dilemma by "offering an alternative
from the beginning." And we should help our brothers
and sisters in Christ who are now struggling with the dilemma,
so they can emerge from the experience with renewed faith in God
and
the
Bible.A love for people is our
motivation for evangelism, among our friends, colleagues, and neighbors,
at school, work, and in our neighborhood, and in other parts of the
world. Joshua Zorn, a missionary involved in church planting,
has survived the if-if-then struggle and retained his faith, as a former
believer in young-earth teaching that "creates
a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the
church." Because this teaching "has
a virtual monopoly in overseas missions" he is worried,
as a missionary evangelist, that "we
are sowing the seeds of a major crisis which will make the job of world
evangelism
even
harder than it is already." {more about young-earth
experiences plus ideas for young-earth Christians}

Appropriate HumilityAdvocates of a young-earth
position should be admired for their desire to determine what The Word
of God teaches, and believe it. But I wish they would humbly
consider the possibility that their young-earth interpretation might
be wrong, and would adopt a more loving attitude toward their brothers
and sisters in Christ who don't include young-earth belief as part
of their Christian faith.Instead, there is a "not
in our church" attitude, as when John Morris says: "Old-earth
thinking is incompatible with the work of Christ. ... [young-earth] creationism
should be a requirement for Christian leadership! No church should
sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, deacon, elder, or Bible-study leader
who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine. (source)" I agree with Morris that, for
essential doctrines, we should not be "tolerant" (as defined in postmodern
relativism) by accepting other interpretations. We
should say "this is what the Bible clearly teaches, and it is important." But
for nonessential doctrines that are less certain or less important, we should
be more appropriately humble. It seems wise, for personal faith and for
evangelism, to focus our attention on doctrines that are most clearly taught
and most important, and when all things are considered (including information
from nature) seem most likely to be true. I encourage you to study scripture
and nature, think about the arguments for and against each "age of the earth"
view, and decide what you think is most likely to be true, and also
the level of humility that is justified by the possibility that another view
is actually
true. If
you do this and you conclude that the earth and universe are young, that's
fine. But
if you do, I hope you won't insist that young-earth belief is an essential
part of The Gospel of Jesus, that either "both are true, or neither are
true." If instead you say "I think the earth is young, but
I respect your old-earth position," it could help reduce the number of
people who reject their faith (or who never come to faith) because they conclude
that "the earth is not young, so the Bible is not true."

Respect and Charity In the area of origins,
emotions can rise due to disagreements among people who feel strongly
about important issues, who are trying to find the truth and share
it with others. In the current climate of controversy, our personal
interactions will be more enjoyable and productive if we recognize
the rationality of other positions (by recognizing that others may
also have good reasons for believing as they do) and adopt an attitude
of respectful humility (honoring the dignity of individuals holding
those positions) and remember that ideas and people are both important. Some words of wisdom, useful
in all areas of life, come from St. Augustine: "In
essentials, unity. In nonessentials, diversity. And in all
things, charity." To follow this advice, we must wisely
distinguish between what is essential and nonessential, and behave with
charity, with respectful humility and a love that transcends our differences. When
we do this, as
Jesus says, "everyone will recognize
that you are my disciples, when
they see the love you have for each other. (John 13:35)"

This page is one part of
responses to FrequentlyAsked Questions aboutCreation, Evolution,
and Intelligent Design,
written by Craig Rusbult,
with an ASA-disclaimer.

A
DISCLAIMER:
The views in this page don't necessarily represent views of the American
Scientific Affiliation. It is written
for ASA but is
not the ASA-FAQ, as explained in the FAQ-homepage.

Other pages in the 8-page set are in the right
sidebar above.

This page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of "Whole-Person
Education" website),
is an "editorial" that doesn't claim to speak for ASA, as
explained above.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agetheology.htm

This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
anITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to
another part of it, and
a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window,
so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were.